The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promoteeliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promoteeliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promoteeliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

I take it you believe this would be fair to states with less population? This is exactly what the framers had with great foresight sought to prevent. That is, states with great population centers, thus with greater populations would control the executive branch seat (POTUS). With the executive branch seat controlled, this would control the appointments to the supreme court (SCOTUS). If your plan were in place it would in no way be a fair way to represent the U.S. unless you lived in CA, NY, FL, PA, OH, IL. The method prescribed by our founders is exactly what this nation needed then and needs today. Yes, I did the math and the liberal progressive and illegal alien states win every time.

Please have a look at the post just prior to your last (in this thread) for the "boilerplate"....

It always seems to me that the losers demand a change in the Electoral College system after each election.

I don't think that the "Founding Fathers" imagined that we'd have a country this size, with such a diverse population, but mostly, IMHO that the standards for voters would change the way they did, and/or the method for assigning Electoral Votes would turn out the way it has.

Voting rights have gone from "practically nobody" to "practically everybody". IMHO, the major problem there is to allow people who don't pay taxes the ability to vote on the taxes, or to be otherwise uninformed about the issues being voted on. In the last Obama election, I opined that there were folks out there who would vote for Adolph Hitler if Oprah suggested it. Maybe they ran out of Obamaphones, but that didn't seem to happen this time.

Finally, the system seems to count "warm bodies", not potential voters. A great reason to push along the immigrants (some of whom may never acquire citizenship, or manage to vote) - to get more electoral votes.

Then, however, we have to consider who votes, and how that is decided. Having fun yet?

Better minds than mine have, for whatever reasons, been working on this forever. Someday....

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promoteeliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

.If we're going to do things by popular vote lets start with a vote to eliminate the IRS, bATF, EPA, ( Will Add More Here Later ). I think eliminating these would be VERY Popular!

That points system is just a scheme to con the math challenged into agreeing to kill the electoral college. There would be NO difference between the two.

AlanMThere are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAHFour boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.